The CIA documents also offer tantalizing speculation about the chain of events in late 1963 that explained Oswald’s motives for killing Kennedy, which have previously never been established with certainty—how he may have become enraged after reading a detailed article in his hometown newspaper in New Orleans in September suggesting that his hero Castro had been targeted for assassination by the Kennedy administration. According to that theory, Oswald, who had rifle training in the Marine Corps, then set out to seek vengeance on Castro’s behalf—to kill Kennedy before the American president managed to kill the Cuban leader.

If that proved true, it would have raised a terrible question for the CIA: Was it possible that JFK’s assassination was, directly or indirectly, blowback for the spy agency’s plots to kill Castro? It would eventually be acknowledged the CIA had, in fact, repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro, sometimes in collusion with the Mafia, throughout Kennedy’s presidency. The CIA’s arsenal of weapons against Castro included a fungus-infected scuba suit, a poison-filled hypodermic needle hidden in a pen—and even an exploding cigar. The Warren Commission, never told about the CIA’s Castro plots, mostly ducked the question of Oswald’s motives, other than saying in its final report that he had expressed a “hatred for American society.”

It's kinda rough seeing a video clip of someone being murdered, but hey, this is what we do best.

I'm not a ballistics evidence CSI expert, but doesn't it look like the bullet is entering JFK from thefront and not the back as always explained? If the bullet entered from the back, why doesn't theback of his head explode?

It's kinda rough seeing a video clip of someone being murdered, but hey, this is what we do best.

I'm not a ballistics evidence CSI expert, but doesn't it look like the bullet is entering JFK from thefront and not the back as always explained? If the bullet entered from the back, why doesn't theback of his head explode?

It's kinda rough seeing a video clip of someone being murdered, but hey, this is what we do best.

I'm not a ballistics evidence CSI expert, but doesn't it look like the bullet is entering JFK from thefront and not the back as always explained? If the bullet entered from the back, why doesn't theback of his head explode?

It's kinda rough seeing a video clip of someone being murdered, but hey, this is what we do best.

I'm not a ballistics evidence CSI expert, but doesn't it look like the bullet is entering JFK from thefront and not the back as always explained? If the bullet entered from the back, why doesn't theback of his head explode?

It's kinda rough seeing a video clip of someone being murdered, but hey, this is what we do best.

I'm not a ballistics evidence CSI expert, but doesn't it look like the bullet is entering JFK from thefront and not the back as always explained? If the bullet entered from the back, why doesn't theback of his head explode?

Oswald was not an agent of the intelligence community, please explain how he: 1-defected to Russia2-made known that he would disclose all information he had pertaining to his military training to the Russians. 3-did not one iota of propaganda and was treated really well while in Russia, where he married the niece of a Russian intelligence officer 4-applied for a US visa which was given to him in less than 48 hours and Uncle Sam loaned him the money to travel back to the states. With his Russian wife. Everything else aside, how, HOW could a former military man who had defected and given up classified military info be welcomed home like that unless he was an intelligence officer? Follow up-if you believe he did the shooting, why would he wait to take the shot on Houston and Elm? 88 yards through heavy foliage with a defective scope and a shoulder rifle? Why do that when he had the president in a funnel shot on Houston??? Oswald is a black hole. But he didn't shoot JFK.﻿Jesus is love

It's history and it helps us illustrate understand the reality of what transpired.

Apart from incontrovertibly showing us that he was killed, how is this the case? There are tonsof theories on how/why he was killed, and the Warren Commission is inconsistent at best andand a joke at worst.

the movement of his head is called physics... heads do that... the bullet goes in small and comes out bigger and the newtons 2nd law does the rest.

Elaborate, please.

the bullet goes in fast and small... then it slows and expands and makes a larger exit wound as it does it pushed the head back in the opposite direction of the shot.... as it enters the head goes a little bit forward (in the direction of the bullet: the resistance to force difference as well as him being alive make the forward motion less pronounced) as it exits it goes back more because there is less resistance to the opposite force of the bullet and tissues exciting. it is basic physics/ People that say "why does he head do back" just do not understand the physics or ballistics.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.

i think he also took part in a mock trial that found Lee guilty... he also said he could in 100 hours convict OJ but he also said he could convict GW BUSH. but he put manson away... so RIP or whatever....

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.

i read bugliosi's book a few years ago. it's dauntingly long, heavy as a brick, but it's truly comprehensive and really ought to be the last word on this business.

if you're not quite willing to take on 1500+ pages on this topic, gerald posner's 'case closed' is also really great. at about 450 pages, it's obviously not as comprehensive as bugliosi's book, but it makes the same point in a much shorter read. bugliosi took a couple of fairly strong shots at posner in his own book for a few factual flubs and at least one instance where posner seemingly took credit for compiling a list when he mainly just consolidated the leg-work done by others, but he also praised it as good work that got the facts on oswald correct.

the idea that oswald acted in a conspiracy really doesn't pass any kind of probability test. bugliosi lays some of the basic case out, in that video, but off the top of my head, i can think of other things he didn't mention. for eg: if oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill kennedy, why did he try to kill edwin walker 7 months earlier? if he'd been caught, he'd never have a shot at kennedy, which would surely be much more important than taking out a fringe right wing failed politician. or just the fact that oswald was employed at the school book depository; the only reason he was there is because russian friends of his then pregnant wife took pity on her for having a sad sack unemployed husband and used some connections to get him an interview there. pure happenstance.

anyway, these things and much more are all laid out in both bugliosi's and posner's books, and i definitely would recommend both to anyone - both are great works and great reads.

[Edited 8/9/17 18:37pm]

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."